CAMUS' CONCEPT OF ALIENATION DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE Mnittx of ^Ijilo^opI)? m PHILOSOPHY By SHABNAM ASHAI Under the Supervision of Prof. WAHEED AKHTAR Chairman Philosophy Departmant DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSIiy ALIGARH (INDIA) 1994 DS2908 •;'^^ MI\DLIB9 ,,:0 No, 1 8 0CT1997 .002 CH£<^'*'X D DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH - 202002 (O.P.) INDIA DATED : 6^(2'W^ CERTIFICATE I certify that the M.Phil, dissertation entitled "Camus' Concept of Alienation", submitted by Ms Shabnam Ashai is her original research work and has been written under my supervision and guidance. Prof. Waheed Akhtar (Supervisor) Deptt. of Philosophy A.M.U., Aligarh (U.P.) DEDICATED TO MY SISTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is my profound previlege to express heartiest indebtness to my supervisor. Professor Waheed Akhtar, for his invaluable guidance and. helpful criticism. These words are the barest acknowledgement of all that I owe to him towards the completion of my research work, I am thankful to Dr. Sanaullah Mir, Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, A.M.U., who helped me in his generous way, whenever I needed advice, I could rely on him. The completion of this work has been greatly aided by the help and encouragement of Mr. Zubair Rizvi, Secretary Urdu Academy, Delhi and Mustafa Khwaja, Prof. Womens College, M.A. Road, Srinagar. I am most thankful to Mr. Pradeep Sharma who deserves appreciation for typing my dissertation carefully. (SHABNAM ASHAI) CAMUS' CONCEPT OF ALIENATION CHAPTER I: (Page 1-30) CONCEPT OF MAN IN HISTORICAL RETROSPECT: the approach of classical and modern western thinkers, mystics and sufis. CHAPTER II; (Page 31-61) THE PROBLEM OF ALIENATION. CHAPTER III (Page 62-94) CAMUS' CONCEPT OF STRANGER OR OUTSIDER. CHAPTER IV (Page ?;3-110) A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF CAMUS' CONCEPT OF ALIENATION. CHAPTER I CONCEPT OF MAN IN HISTORICAL RETROSPECT "What is the nature of man"? is surely one of the most important questions of philosophy. For, whatever questions we raise regarding human situation depend ultimately on our view of human nature, the meaning and purpose of human life, what man ought to do and hopes to achieve etc., are fundamentally affected by whatever one thinks is the real or true nature of man. In the history of western thought, philosophers, scientists and men of letters have sought to know man, either with the dualistic hypothesis or with a monoistic hypothesis. The upholders of the dualistic hypothesis have suggested that man is the unity of two principal components i.e. body and spirit, which though they are logically independent are yet substantially united together as man. On the other hand, the upholders of the monoistic hypothesis considered the real nature of man either as purely spiritual or as purely material. In ancient Greece Pythagoras was probably the first philosopher to uphold a dualistic hypothesis for explaining the existence of man. For him and his followers man is a composite of body and soul. Soul being the eternal element while body is a temporal phenomenon. Pythagoras believed in transmigration of souls and he was of the view that man is an integral part of cosmos. The soul changes its bodily forms; sometimes it may appear in human form, sometime in animal form and sometime in plant form. He believed that purity was to be sought by silence, self- examination, abstention from flesh, and the observence of other rituals which the pythagoras interpreted symbolically, For Plato and Aristotle also man is a composite 2 being consituted by the elements of body and soul . In agreement with Pythagoras Plato was of the view that the soul is eternal and its original home is beyond space and time. Its presence in this world indicates a fall in state. For Plato reality consists of Ideas and these ideas are beyond space and time and they are eternal and unchanging. Soul actually belongs to that realm. The human soul in its fallen state on this earth aspires to reach out again to its original home, the realm of ideas. But at the same time it is bound by the body and its earthly needs often make it forget its real aspirations. So according to Plato there is a built-in tension in the human situation. On the one hand human spirit aspires to fly but on the other hand its bodily weight pulls it down to earth. What is the true nature of man? Replies Aristotle, "We see it clearest in the most intellectual and most 3 highly socialized life of man" . Differently expressed, man is by nature intellectual and social; and therefore the ideal life is the life of the philosopher, the life of the citizen in a free city-state and the life of friendship. For Aristotle every entity of this universe is composed of matter and form; form being the actuality and matter being the possibility. So far as man is concerned we can say that soul is the form of man and according to Aristotle every object in this universe aims to achieve its true form. So we can say that according to Aristotle the evolution of a man consists in actualizing his true form i.e. his soul. Aristotle also was of the view that a man cannot realize his true form in a state of loneliness. A man needs the company of other men in order to realize his true self. That is why Aristotle called man a social animal. But by virtue of being a social animal man is also a political animal according to Aristotle. Here again we can discern that there is a tension built-in the very structure of man. On the one hand man is supposed to realize, actualize his own particular true form but on the other hand he is required to seek the help and assistence of others for doing the same . For Epicurs human organism is composed of atoms undergoing characteristic patterns of change. Like all other atomic compounds man came into being when the necessary conditions have been met. He has no creator and no destiny. His good is pleasure, his highest good is a life of secure and lasting pleasure. According to him men are not united by any natural bond, they form alliances for mutual advantage . Coming to modern times; for Descartes man is a composite of body and mind. Both these elements are, as per tradition, conceived to be totally different from one another, the attribute of mind being thought, and the attribute of body being extension. He was of the opinion that a disembodied mind can exist on its own. But the problem with the cartesian idea is how can two essentially different things like body and mind be united? Descartes somehow comes out with a solution that is definetly unsound. He says that the two are related via pineal gland in the brain . Notwithstanding the unsoundness of cartesian solution, we can discern again that there is a built-in tension in the very structure of the human being. The needs of the mind and demands of the body are definitly at variance with each other. And the problem is how to balance and harmonise the two. John Locke distinguishes the concept of man from the concept of person. A man according to Locke is a certain sort of living organism whose identity depends on its biological organisation. On the other hand, he defined a person as "A thinking Intelligent being, that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself at,different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness which is inseperable from thinking and essential to it"7 . A person according to Locke is a morally responsible agent. Locke thought, that what makes people accountable for their actions is their ability to recognise them as their own. This means two things: first, an awareness of what one is doing when one is doing it and, second, an ability to remember having done it. Hence, he said that the criterion for the identity of persons, as distinct from men is consciousness, a concept intended to embrass both awareness and memory. Henc<» we discern a tension between these two concepts, man and person. For Neitzche man has no supernatural dignity. Man's dignity is not a pregiven fact but a goal that few approach. There is no meaning in life except the meaning man gives to his life, and the aims of most men have no surpassing dignity. To raise ourselves above the senseless flux, we must cease being merely human. We must be hard against ourselves and overcome ourselves; we must become creators instead of remaining mere creatures. For Neitzche human evolution is possible only through, "Suffering, being forsaken, profound self contempt, the torture of mistrust g of himself and the misery of him who is overcome" . He is of the view that there is no other way in which one can attain or prove one's worth. In this regard Ortega y Gasset has rightly pointed out: The select man is not the petulant person who thinks himself superior to the rest, The most radical division that is possible to make of humanity is that which splits it into two classes of creatures: Those who make great ^^mands of themselves, pilling up difficulties and duties; and those who demand nothing special to themselves, but for whom to live is to be every moment what they already are, without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on the waves. Thus we see that human condition for Neitzche is to be torn by strife and a perpetual struggle and flight against one self.